Slashdot Mirror
Has Open Source Lost Its Halo?
PetManimal writes "Open-source software development once had a reputation as a grassroots movement, but it is increasingly a mainstream IT profit center, and according to Computerworld, some in the industry are asking whether 'open source' has become a cloak used by IT vendors large and small to disguise ruthless and self-serving behavior. Citing an online opinion piece by Gordon Haff, an analyst at Illuminata Inc., the article notes that HP and IBM have not only profited from open-source at the expense of competitors, but have also boosted their images in the open-source community. The Computerworld article also mentions the efforts by the Microsoft/Windows camp to promote open-source credentials: '[InfoWorld columnist Dave] Rosenberg is more disturbed by the bandwagon jumpers: the companies, mostly startups, belatedly going open-source in order to ride a trend, while paying only lip service to the community and its values. Take Aras Corp., a provider of Windows-based product lifecycle management (PLM) software that in January decided to go open-source. Rosenberg depicted the firm in his blog as an opportunistic Johnny-Come-Lately. "I'm not impressed when a company whose software is totally built on Microsoft technologies goes open-source," said Rosenberg, who even suspects that the company is being promoted by Microsoft as a shill to burnish Redmond's image in open-source circles."'"
I wish I had know about that.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
The first thing that crossed my mind upon reading the headline was that some previosly open-source game to rival Halo had gone closed source or the development team walked away..
Silly context, always breaking things.
Can and Will an article that started off with chewing out Open Source vendors who ignore its values and end up bashing Microsoft.
Didnt mean it as a flame..it was just funny reading it.
Rapid Nirvana
I know Tivo pisses some people off, while at the same time they are sort of a poster child for "what linux can do".
I mean, they follow the letter of the GPL - I can get the source - but since the kernel must be cryptographically signed to execute on the device, this source is useless.
But the GPL never said anything about me being able to hack my device. Tivo is just like any other corporation in that respect, they don't want me adding functionality, they want me to pay for it.
They've taken from the community, made a good deal of money, and really have given nothing back, and really don't have to.
The GPL, and OSS in general, really isn't about giving back. It's about taking advantage of the altruism of others. I don't mean that in a negative way either. When I set up linux on old hardware as a router, I was doing the same thing. I've never released the firewall scripts I tweaked up, or even told anybody upstream of a couple of bugs I've fixed for myself. Tivo, and for that matter, IBM, HP or Novell all have the same rights that I do.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
OK, help me out here. A few years ago weren't the open source folks crying that no one was taking their clearly-superior products seriously? Now a few large companies are utilizing it and promoting it and taking it seriously, and we're still crying? Hmmmmmm.
It's not that it's lost its halo, it's just that it has realized its usefulness. The fact that companies make money off open-source technologies doesn't mean that open-source is bad. Anyone who thinks that is doing the entire open-source community a great disservice.
We don't live in a utopian communist state. Progress is driven by self-interest, and I am happy that companies make money using open-source technologies, because it not only affirms the essential role of OSS in the marketplace, but also provides incentive for support and adoption of OSS by those who were previously skeptical.
Recent developments with Novell aside, if software companies open their software (under a real Free license), their reasons for doing so and their relations with the community aren't really that important. That's the whole reason we have Free Software licenses -- so that users and independent developers don't have to worry about the behavior of the companies that put out the software. You can trust the GPL, even if you don't trust SoftwareVendorReleasingGPL'dSoftware.
I think its a case of "bad apples" spoiling the good ones.
Whether fair or not, a lot of open source projects come across as being incomplete, UI nightmares, geek-tool-only, and large organization unfriendly because of support issues.
Not every open-source project is that way, but when I worked at HP that was the case. You mentioned open-source and managers would run to update your file as a trouble maker. When you got a manager to approve a demo, you'd have to work twice as hard to explain why this was a good alternative, why the weird UI wasn't an issue, and how the tool was self supporting or support could be done easily "in house". However, if you hadn't told the manager that it was "open source" and that it was "off the shelf", you could get by without the massive sales job.
Why?
Because too many open source projects are:
It's a perception problem. No matter the platform, OSS has an image problem that may be rightly deserved.
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
...I could care less if the company cares about the community or its values, and that's the point.
The only good argument from a business perspective for open source is that if you use open source software you are not going to be held hostage by a licensor that alters the deal when your business is wedded to the IT infrastructure they provide. As long as the open source license these "bad" open source companies release it under is really an open license that allows you to modify and redistribute the code, that's all that matters. I don't have to care why the released the source. It just doesn't matter.
Half of his arguments are BS.
For example, Eclipse had killed JBuilder and Symantec Cafe (?) not because it was free but because it was so much better. GOOD commercial Java IDEs are still alive and kicking - see IDEA (http://www.jetbrains.com/) for example.
Apache Derby is hardly ever used outside of small embedded databases. Everyone uses Oracle/Postgres/MySQL/...
A lot of GOOD commercial products exists and successfully compete with their OpenSource counterparts. For example, Tangasol Coherence (http://www.tangosol.com/) beats JGroups and JBoss Cache.
Heaven forbid people make money on building products around a free piece of software while working within the guidelines of use and distribution of that software.
"I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
Well, tomorrow if IBM decides to change the fee structure and demand an arm and a leg or it thinks it should change the file formats to keep the competition out or decide to drop support for some API to maintain an advantage... Guess what? There is nothing to stop the customers/competitors to take the ball run circles around IBM. That is why Open source is not all that predatory.
Sometimes some people get a profound insight and that produces a view point that is strikingly different from the crowd. This article mimics the symptom, "being radically different from the rest" but without a cogent underlying argument that is the hallmark of a "profound insight".
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
How do you tell a GPL advocate? Well, it's someone who reads the GPL. And how do you tell a GPL opponent? It's someone who understands the GPL.
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
Exactly what part of "competitive marketplace" does the author not understand?
Ruthless and self-serving behavior is how businesses compete. No one is in business to help their competitors. No one who has to deal with the realities of the business world gives a rat's ass about the ideologies behind Free/open source software. The only thing anyone cares about is whether open source provides a better solution than the alternatives, or provides a similar solution at a lower price. IBM helps and promotes open source projects because these projects help IBM. This isn't altruism, but quid pro quo.
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
the knowledge and wisdom that being self-serving can help the community but the main motivation is that you are helping yourself. (Not that this works 100% of the time, hence laws®ulation.)
But isn't this same philosophy driving Open Source essentially? People give to the whole because they know it is cheaper to maintain and they get more (features, reliability, freedom, what have you) out of it than going closed source?
I am not so much bothered by big companies jumping in for their own benefit than a company like SCO and Microsoft behind it, who aren't satisfied with a piece of the pie, but want the whole pie, even if it means destroying the existing community - and those are the players that really aren't involved in the first place.
IBM has a right to try to make money and if there business is good enough that they entice people to spend that cash, they deserve it. Otherwise, it makes no sense for IBM to be in Opensource in the first place. And they have contributed enough to be seen and acknowledged as a general benefactor.
Not to sound like Stallman here, but there have always been two camps - those who think software should be Free as in "we should be able to do what we want with the code for moral/ethical reasons" and those who see practical benefits as in "when people can do what they want with the code everyone benefits."
I would expect most businesses are part of the open source camp, not the free software camp, and open source was always pragmatic. That's WHY it appeals to people where Free doesn't - because there's a definite concrete benefit.
Businesses as they exist in the US are by and large about making money, not upholding principles. Some businesses do both, but look at Google ("do no evil") and how they delt with China. Capitalism has its limits, and one of them is being socially aware - awareness of community responsibility and discharging that responsibility is always a short term loss for a long term gain (i.e. pay more to properly dispose of waste, lose the profit you could have gotten by keeping the $$ and dumping it in the river, but long term preserve the environment and the health of the people around you, avoid litigation and community ill will). Capitalism sucks at long term anything, which is why government needs to be different from and independent of corporations. That's why framing the free/open proposal as "you get a benefit/save $$ from doing this" rather than "you're morally obligated to do this - it's the ethical thing" is effective. It just so happens that releasing free software has immediate benefits AND benefits society, so PR can say the company is doing both. Sure, the ACTUAL reasons they did it might not deserve a halo, but getting outraged over them not being "genuinely committed to the ideals of Free Software" is as pointless as it is futile, in the business world as it exists today.
If people do the right thing, it's not very helpful to wonder if they did it for the wrong reasons. How can we know for sure, and what could we do about it even if we did know for sure and don't like their reasons? Insist they do the wrong thing?
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
It's great when Linus Torvalds releases Linux as open-source, even though it's systematically destroying the competitive market for mid-level Unix OS's, because he's a nice, altruistic guy.
It's not as good when Sun and IBM open-source their Java IDE's, because it destroys the market for Java IDE's, because they're laaaarge corporations, and are only doing this to weed out smaller competitors.
And it's eeevil when someone open-sources something on a Windows platform, because they obviously are only doing it for the publicity, regardless of whether they have competitors or not.
But then again, Sun and IBM are directly competing with Microsoft, the most evil of all. And open-sourcing on Windows might mean more software gets ported to Linux.
But wait, we should ignore this benefit, because, again, these are laaaarge corporations and aren't part of the community. Nor are they completely altruistic, because they make money.
But I really do like Eclipse and Java.
(Damn it, I'm confused! Who am I supposed to hate here?)
Oh yeah, Microsoft SUCKS!
If moderation could change anything, it would be illegal.
One of the big benefits of the GPL is that it helps businesses to protect themselves from bad vendor behavior.
No, it is not a panacea. Anyone who thinks so will get what they probably deserve. However, it is certainly an improvement over what vendors of, say, closed-source accounting and CRM packages are able to do to their customers.
Of course, there will still be slimy business behavior - that is what capitalism is all about.
Is open-source software being used by vendors to gain advantages? I assume that's what was meant by "ruthless and self-serving behavior." Although I don't agree that gaining an advantage by releasing code to the world under the GPL can realistically be classified as "ruthless" it is self-serving. There is not much that a large corporation does that isn't. They exist, after all, to make a profit for their stockholders.
But let's look at what may be driving big corporations to embrace open-source: Microsoft.
Really, what choice do they realistically have? Microsoft uses dirty and illegal tactics. They leverage their monopoly products to such a degree that even large corporations know that they can't compete. Microsoft doesn't realize it but they are their own worst enemy. They are like the unsuccessful parasite that kills its host and therefore dies also.
The only choice the IT industry outside of Microsoft has is to ban together in a common strategy to slay Goliath.
Given Microsoft's continued anti-competitive tactics I agree. We should all work together to make Microsoft irrelevant. Don't support them in anything that they do. Don't use technologies that they develop. Let the Mono project die. Don't support it, don't use it. Use free (as in speech) technologies to generate active web pages. Never use ASP.net.
The first link was Slash dotted but I have a few comments about the second. It states:
"Imagine, if you will, that it's the late Nineties. A certain software company based in Redmond, Washington has recently released Visual Studio 97--thereby bundling together many of its development tools for the first time. Now imagine that the company decided to release those tools for free."
Microsoft has released some tools for free (as in beer) and have even allowed companies to view their source code with strict "no compile, "no altering", non-disclosure restrictions but this is not the definition of open source.
Free software as defined by the Open Source community is not about money. How long will it take for people to "get it?" Free software is "free as in speech." Is that so hard to grasp? It is free of restrictions of any kind except that the user may not apply new restrictions upon it. At least that was the intent. Microsoft and Novell may have found a patent loophole in the GPL v2 license. (The slime balls) But this loophole will be closed in GPL v3.
Asking the question : What would the reaction be the author states:
"I think we all know the answer to that one. As James Robertson over at Smalltalk Tidbits, Industry Rants notes: "...had Microsoft released Visual Studio as free software 10 years ago, that almost certainly would have been seen as predatory behavior."
Not if they had released the source code under the GPL. Again, keeping the source code proprietary and releasing only a free (as in beer) executable is a very different thing.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
If Free and Open Source Software is getting so trendy that evil corporations are actually releasing code under bona fide licenses that grant broad user and developer freedoms, I'd tend to say that the opposite: open ideals are forcing corporate greed to lose some of its horns.
Microsoft Shared Source? No. Mysql? Sure. Tivo? Partially (it's essentially a GPL kernel and FOSS OS on top of a proprietary BIOS and hardware design).
Don't compromise the licenses, and don't let anyone get away with branding themselves "open" short of the licenses, and we will continue to see sociopathic business interests kept to a modicum of user accountability.
You have demonstrated at least a passing familiarity with the slashdot ethos. That's why it's so surprising that you don't recognize the simple truth. Individuals who use open source but do nothing to contribute except yelling loudly and incoherently about it's benefits are supporting open source. Because, you know, they're, uh, rebellious non-conformists sticking it to the man. Companies who invest time and money into open source projects are still evil because, um, they're doing it for mercenary reasons. And mercenaries kill people. Which is evil. QED.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
No one ever said you had to switch to GPLv3. If you don't like it, don't use it. If you aren't distributing GPLv3 software, it won't even effect you.
A voluntary agreement can not in any conceivable way restrict freedom. It's voluntary, you are free to not enter the agreement. Funny how many people's definition of "freedom" really means freedom for them, not freedom for the other guy. Your position seems to advocate a kind of software socialism for corporations, where programmers are forced to cede control of their own creations in order to benefit another's bottom line.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
You'd think that the availability of Eclipse and Netbeans would drive non-free Java IDEs out of the market. However at my company IntelliJ IDEA is the most popular IDE despite its non-zero cost. After using both I would be satisfied with Eclipse, but I'm glad my company got me a copy of IDEA. Apparently companies are willing to shell out cash for software that is only incrementally more useful than free alternatives. See Windows vs. Linux, MS Office vs. OpenOffice, etc.
For me, the fact that OSS is no longer considered a grassroots movement is a good thing. Now we can actually make the distinction between OSS and FOSS. OSS is an important concept, and it's been around since the beginning of Unix. OSS simply means that source code is included with the license. If you want to show integrity, OSS is the way to go. It allows your client to independently verify your work. Given the amount of spyware and rootkit stories we hear, you'd be silly to trust any ISV who *didn't* provide source code with their product. But you can still have your client sign an NDA, use a license that prevents redistribution, etc. OSS was and still is a workable business model.
FOSS is still a grassroots movement, and will continue to be. The reason is simple; FOSS builds on concepts of OSS to perform a public service. FOSS is about freedom, which requires integrity in addition to a whole bunch of other grassroots goodness.
So no, OSS hasn't lost it's halo (assuming it ever had one) because it's always been about openness and integrity. If it weren't, it wouldn't be OSS.
"Please describe the scientific nature of the 'whammy'" - Agent Scully
I think it was inevitable, and here's the reason: Eddie Van Halen, punk rock, hip-hop, horror movies.
Open Source is a pop culture phenomenon. Linux wasn't its first attempt at stardom, but it was a major smash hit. Everybody in the world has Linux. If you lived in the suburbs you were issued it free along with samples of Tide. Open Source was rebellious. The neighbors hated when you played it loud, and mom and dad didn't much care for the new friends you were keeping.
Open Source got big just from that one breakthrough, and they earned all these new fans. There were a bunch of people were screaming "Hey man! I knew Open Source before Linux! GNU man! FreeBSD!!!" And yeah, we the new fans said, "Hey that sounds cool, but I'm really into this Linux. Richard who? Was he the original singer?"
We outgrew that for the most part as Open source got really influential. Soon it was everywhere, but like Metallica, Open source wasn't getting the respect it deserved. All of us in our campy t-shirts, messy hair, and our hard-earned pennies; yet we still couldn't get Linux in the stores. We got zero air-time. It sucked. But we didn't care, the music was pure.
Then suddenly, Open Source became cool, and everyone started doing it. They copied it. My sister asked to borrow my copy. IBM put out cute ads mentioning Linux as a principal influence. We got our own books and magazines. We were recognized, and we the fans shared much of the credit. But what about the original Open Source? Well, it matured. It got a little pretenious... a little fat, and somewhat... boring. Like hip-hop, it's so pervasive in everything that it doesn't merit being discussed separately. What's so special about a drop D tuning? What's so controversial about a bloody death scene in a horror movie when ever TV dramas feature them? Open Source got commercialized; watered down in the hands of suits who just don't get it. Sure, they get it. Buy hey man, they don't get it! We were doing it first, man! They're just copying the sound and the look, but it's got no passion, man!
And that is the death of Open Source as a movement. After a while, movements lose steam. Not because no one cares anymore, but because they aren't seen as a challenge to contemporary conventional wisdom. If closed source was the thesis, and Open Source was the antithesis; then what we have now is the synthesis. The only people who should care about Open Source not being appreciated as a separate doctrine are those that still want to focus all astronomical talk on how the earth orbits the sun. We know already.
People are free to tell you whatever they want to. You are free to listen or not. Speech is not capable of "pounding you into the ground." As far as I can tell, there is still much debate over GPLv3 and the "RMS-is-GOD-and-can-do-no-wrong crowd" are a very small minority of open source supporters. In any case, you can always use the GPLv2 version and update it yourself under v2. Just because someone happens to think RMS is god is no reason for you to steal their work. And if there is one thing I know about the RMSIGACDNW crowd, it is that they don't give a rat's ass if you use their software or not.
What "business" are you giving that crowd, anyway? How much are you paying them? Nothing? You mean you're just a whining leach who doesn't want to contribute but wants to dictate how others contribute? Gotcha.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton